Another National Enquirer affair story

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nah, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of our fellow posters.

I wish I could remember what thread the topic came up in, but quite a few of them defended the media for ignoring the Enquirer's story on Edwards.
A few hours ago the Enquirer was a trashy tabloid, now it is a newspaper worthy of respect.

Let's see if this story goes anywhere. Sadly the Enquirer has a history of writing stories that being with the line "Sources say" without ever talking about who those sources are. Basically the garbage man could create a good story and sell it to them.

I've defended Palin here, not for her politics but because of the "it's not her baby" nonsense. I also believe that because her daughter got pregnant doesn't mean that she personally failed. Anyone with a child knows they have their own mind and sometimes things happen.

That said, I don't see the majority of people reacting nearly the same. Sure they're talking about it, and there's "what if's", but not many are accepting this as fact. More are taking Perknoses' postion about not buying into the trash trap than swearing it's the truth.

Palin's fair game, whether it's fair or not. So far on this issue it's not nearly as bad as I think you imply. Hopefully it stays that way.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What would be even better is if McCain and Palin are elected and they get caught banging each other in the Oval Office. The President banging the VP. Now, that would make for a juicy story!

I doubt McCranky could get it up.

For her, he probably could.

If not, he can use his McCane.

 

[MadRat]

What is up with this parading this soccer stud around with the family? It's like sending the message, "Hey boy, you're going to go places kid because you dropped one in my daughter!" Seriously. The kid took advantage of this dopey fat girl and he's getting rewarded. Doesn't anyone see the irony here?

Now we have rumors Palin herself is prone to sex outside of marriage. So what if she married her high school sweetheart, too, she was 24 years old not seventeen! Big difference.

When Mitt Romney had the stage last night it reminded me the whole irony of this Republican convention. Here is the one guy that has kept himself elevated out of the scandals and muckrake in order to make something of his political tenure. How does a guy that has built his reputation on snuffing corruption and assholes like members of McCain's election camp get suddenly wrapped up as a keynote speaker IN SUPPORT OF this whole quagmire? Mitt should of been the guy taking the nomination, instead he's the peon propping this turd ship up.

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: MadRat
What is up with this parading this soccer stud around with the family? It's like sending the message, "Hey boy, you're going to go places kid because you dropped one in my daughter!" Seriously. The kid took advantage of this dopey fat girl and he's getting rewarded. Doesn't anyone see the irony here?

Some of the people in L&R should take notes.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What would be even better is if McCain and Palin are elected and they get caught banging each other in the Oval Office. The President banging the VP. Now, that would make for a juicy story!

I doubt McCranky could get it up.

If Dole could...:laugh:

(Me needs bleach for brain now...)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Does anyone besides myself think it's possible that some of her Alaskan acquaintances might die mysterious deaths in the very near future?

Troopergate, Librariangate, Daughtergate...and now this.

I'm still waiting to find out whether Palin's husband is the father of her seventeen year old daughter's baby. I know that that prospect is going far out on a limb, but it would be exquisitely juicy if it were true.

Her lastname isnt Clinton.

 

[alchemize]

5 kids, and she cheats? Jeez, she must be one horny governor. more fapping material (I kid - I have my own sexy mother-of-many at home).

Well, if precedent holds true she'll have a 6 month pass from the MSM I'm sure, so it won't come out until after the election.

 

[yllus]

Palin Proposed Book Banning As Mayor:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
yllus... Edwards affair was mentioned in the National Enquirer in October 2007.

Despite this the media sat on its hands for 9 months.

The New York Times has no problem printing false allegations against Palin, that she was as member of the Alaskan Independence Party, but did not say one thing about Edwards affair. Why the double standard?

The same edition of the Enquirer also had a story on dogs fucking the Pope. (No fault of mine!) It's one thing to publish rumours and hearsay - it's quite another to get a statement from one of the parties involved to confirm a story. That's the difference between a tabloid and a generally respected newspaper.

Proof ?? Or just made up BS to discredit the Enquirer??

If the Enquirer can find out that Edwards why couldn't the New York Times??

This thread:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nah, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of our fellow posters.

...

Let's see if this story goes anywhere. Sadly the Enquirer has a history of writing stories that being with the line "Sources say" without ever talking about who those sources are. Basically the garbage man could create a good story and sell it to them.

Whatever truth fits the needs of the hour, I guess?

 

[alchemize]

Heh, who would think so much pwnage would come from national enquirer threads.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: yllus

Palin Proposed Book Banning As Mayor:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
yllus... Edwards affair was mentioned in the National Enquirer in October 2007.

Despite this the media sat on its hands for 9 months.

The New York Times has no problem printing false allegations against Palin, that she was as member of the Alaskan Independence Party, but did not say one thing about Edwards affair. Why the double standard?

The same edition of the Enquirer also had a story on dogs fucking the Pope. (No fault of mine!) It's one thing to publish rumours and hearsay - it's quite another to get a statement from one of the parties involved to confirm a story. That's the difference between a tabloid and a generally respected newspaper.

Proof ?? Or just made up BS to discredit the Enquirer??

If the Enquirer can find out that Edwards why couldn't the New York Times??

This thread:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Nah, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of our fellow posters.

...

Let's see if this story goes anywhere. Sadly the Enquirer has a history of writing stories that being with the line "Sources say" without ever talking about who those sources are. Basically the garbage man could create a good story and sell it to them.

Whatever truth fits the needs of the hour, I guess?

I guess we have to ask...why is the MSM sitting on its hands with this story? Bet I don't hear Rush asking that question today.

Another point previously mentioned, the MSM is not pushing any of the Palin smears, nor are official democrat people. A few bloggers are doing what they do best while the right wing talking heads fan the flames of outrage. I listen to Glen Beck, Rush, Hannity and M. Medved throughout the day, nearly every day, it is a non-stop stream of spew demonizing the media and the left. In actuality they're nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill that would be relegated to obscurity if they didn't give it some legitimacy by going on and on about it.

 

[beyoku]

Mhwahhha ha ha ha ha !

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Infidel
I listen to Glen Beck, Rush, Hannity and M. Medved throughout the day, nearly every day, it is a non-stop stream of spew demonizing the media and the left. In actuality they're nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill that would be relegated to obscurity if they didn't give it some legitimacy by going on and on about it.

Making Mountains out of Mole Hills is what the Right Wing Talking Heads are all about.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm just waiting for all the people who talked about how right the National Enquirer is to come out and start trashing it.

Nah... we can just quote you instead

Ahh, I see you think that the NYT should re-print National Enquirer stories. Just because a newspaper prints some things that turn out to be unreliable does not mean that they should take all unreliable sources and print them.

This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but I'm sure it's all just another librul conspiracy, Pro-Jo.

and

You aren't being serious are you? And are you really talking about "made up BS to discredit the Enquirer" as if it needs discrediting? Do you know how many times it has been sued for printing false stories? Maybe... just maybe... the way it collects information makes it so it will sometimes scoop other papers, but other times will print egregious falsehoods it gets sued for.

The NYT, being the most highly respected paper in the US, needs to have higher standards than that.

:laugh:

It'll be interesting to see how Eskimospy spins this one.

Looks like you guys need some reading comprehension lessons then. I never said we should take the National Enquirer seriously in any thread. The thing is, a whole lot of you guys did. Now I want to see what you say when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: smashp
The next thing is for a Sex video to come out and be featured on Bookworm B!tches

BEST POST EVAR!!!

/thumbsup

 

[RightIsWrong]

I have no real comments on the actual article but would like to address how both sides will probably flip on this.

The right demanded that everyone take the N.E. article(s) about Edwards seriously and accused every media outlets and their parent companies of covering it up in a double-secret, liberal media sinister plot. Now they are going to blast the media for paying attention to the N.E. when the story is about their golden girl.

The left excused the incompetence of the media for not doing any legwork to see if there was any validity to the N.E. story about Edwards and are now going to want the media to broadcast this from the mountain tops without verifying the validity of the claims.

Both are kind of right for doing so and so far off base that it is hard to imagine being right in any respects.

As for the story itself and the factuality of it....time will tell.

Oh, and in case anyone was interested....Here's the cover

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What is the street release date on the Enquirer issue?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I have no real comments on the actual article but would like to address how both sides will probably flip on this.

The right demanded that everyone take the N.E. article(s) about Edwards seriously and accused every media outlets and their parent companies of covering it up in a double-secret, liberal media sinister plot. Now they are going to blast the media for paying attention to the N.E. when the story is about their golden girl.

The left excused the incompetence of the media for not doing any legwork to see if there was any validity to the N.E. story about Edwards and are now going to want the media to broadcast this from the mountain tops without verifying the validity of the claims.

Both are kind of right for doing so and so far off base that it is hard to imagine being right in any respects.

As for the story itself and the factuality of it....time will tell.

Oh, and in case anyone was interested....Here's the cover

Actually, speaking as one on the left, I want the MSM to rigorously investigate this NE story, and broadcast the story only if it's found to have real credibility.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: beyoku
Mhwahhha ha ha ha ha !

You got a Ph. D. in Horribleness too, eh?:thumbsup:

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I have no real comments on the actual article but would like to address how both sides will probably flip on this.

The right demanded that everyone take the N.E. article(s) about Edwards seriously and accused every media outlets and their parent companies of covering it up in a double-secret, liberal media sinister plot. Now they are going to blast the media for paying attention to the N.E. when the story is about their golden girl.

The left excused the incompetence of the media for not doing any legwork to see if there was any validity to the N.E. story about Edwards and are now going to want the media to broadcast this from the mountain tops without verifying the validity of the claims.

Both are kind of right for doing so and so far off base that it is hard to imagine being right in any respects.

As for the story itself and the factuality of it....time will tell.

Oh, and in case anyone was interested....Here's the cover

Actually, speaking as one on the left, I want the MSM to rigorously investigate this NE story, and broadcast the story only if it's found to have real credibility.

And if it were Brack Obama? Hell, the NE has more credibility insofar as they dont discriminate in who they investigate, and dont hold anything back just because they are a D or an R. MSM though... 18 months to get anywhere near the Edwards story. Shocking, Palin has been the VP nominee for... 6 days? Didnt take MSM long to latch onto this...

That said, I like freedom of speech, but this anonymous source, undisclosed source, etc. bullshit has to go. Does that keep people from talking to the press? Maybe. It also prevents the press from running with any little bullshit thing that they deem relevant with NO consequences. I dont know what to do about it... might jsut be a necessary evil. Too bad the press has an agenda.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I have no real comments on the actual article but would like to address how both sides will probably flip on this.

The right demanded that everyone take the N.E. article(s) about Edwards seriously and accused every media outlets and their parent companies of covering it up in a double-secret, liberal media sinister plot. Now they are going to blast the media for paying attention to the N.E. when the story is about their golden girl.

The left excused the incompetence of the media for not doing any legwork to see if there was any validity to the N.E. story about Edwards and are now going to want the media to broadcast this from the mountain tops without verifying the validity of the claims.

Both are kind of right for doing so and so far off base that it is hard to imagine being right in any respects.

As for the story itself and the factuality of it....time will tell.

Oh, and in case anyone was interested....Here's the cover

Huh... looks like the US Weekly cover...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I have no real comments on the actual article but would like to address how both sides will probably flip on this.

The right demanded that everyone take the N.E. article(s) about Edwards seriously and accused every media outlets and their parent companies of covering it up in a double-secret, liberal media sinister plot. Now they are going to blast the media for paying attention to the N.E. when the story is about their golden girl.

The left excused the incompetence of the media for not doing any legwork to see if there was any validity to the N.E. story about Edwards and are now going to want the media to broadcast this from the mountain tops without verifying the validity of the claims.

Both are kind of right for doing so and so far off base that it is hard to imagine being right in any respects.

As for the story itself and the factuality of it....time will tell.

Oh, and in case anyone was interested....Here's the cover

Ohh Shannon Dougherty terrorizes set of new 90210? Ill be picking this up for sure!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm just waiting for all the people who talked about how right the National Enquirer is to come out and start trashing it.

Nah... we can just quote you instead

Ahh, I see you think that the NYT should re-print National Enquirer stories. Just because a newspaper prints some things that turn out to be unreliable does not mean that they should take all unreliable sources and print them.

This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but I'm sure it's all just another librul conspiracy, Pro-Jo.

and

You aren't being serious are you? And are you really talking about "made up BS to discredit the Enquirer" as if it needs discrediting? Do you know how many times it has been sued for printing false stories? Maybe... just maybe... the way it collects information makes it so it will sometimes scoop other papers, but other times will print egregious falsehoods it gets sued for.

The NYT, being the most highly respected paper in the US, needs to have higher standards than that.

:laugh:

It'll be interesting to see how Eskimospy spins this one.

Looks like you guys need some reading comprehension lessons then. I never said we should take the National Enquirer seriously in any thread. The thing is, a whole lot of you guys did. Now I want to see what you say when the shoe is on the other foot.

I've read all the posts in this thread, and I agree with you: Nowhere have you advocated that this new NE be given credibility without outside verification. Your two previous posts were:

I'm just waiting for all the people who talked about how right the National Enquirer is to come out and start trashing it.

Which was prescient: The right is now all over itself trying to convince us the NE story shouldn't e taken seriously; and

Wait a minute, you are asking why news outlets are giving more credence to National Enquirer stories about prominent politicians when they were proven correct just over a month ago?

I don't know, I guess I would have to go with the absolutely insanely obvious answer. Then again, I'm not a conservative with a persecution complex who desperately needs the media to be against me to validate my world view.

Which was an explanation of why the MSM might now be giving the NE more credibility.[/b]

I guess the right is feeling pretty desperate. They should be.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It seems that only today we had a long talk about how the MSM ignored the Edwards affair story that the National Enquirer published last October.

A bunch of people on here made excuses on why papers like the NY Times did nothing to look into the story themselves.

But all of a sudden the Enquirer says something about a Republican and everyone is jumping on the story like it is the absolute truth. Amazing how that happened.

The media in North Carolina did not ignore it. As a matter of fact the Charlotte Observer and McClatchy pretty much led the charge following up on the Enquirer

 

[eits]

whoa whoa, i'm her husband's mail carrier... not his business partner.

 

[Fern]

The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy.

Doesn't sound like they have much yet, unlike the Edward's affair. We'll see.

In the Edward's case, they had close friends of the woman claiming she had told them of the affair. This looks quite a bit different - some angry family member claiming she had an affair? Doesn't sound like a case whereby Palin confided in them (unlike the Edwards thing).

Fern